Okay so we were going quite OT in Eug & Jack's engagement thread, but I have more questions and some others might too and it's sth that is discussed frequently anyway, I don't think there's a thread yet so it's good to have one!

Hi can understand why the aristos wanted their estates to go to one person. (Here it’s always the man). I

t was to keep the estates whole and to keep one descendant, and thereby the family as a W hole, have power (and money) centred in one person. To keep the family powerful as a whole.

But maybe there are tax implications why they don’t want women to inherit quite just now. (Planning for inheritance etc etc)

But technicalities aside, it’s not impossible.

Exactly right, but imo the same could be if a woman inherited, maybe with added stipulations that the family name may not be changed (say it's the house of Sheffield, that's the surname, woman inherits but marries a man called Smith and they have kids and she herself, they must stay "Sheffield" but may be "Smith Sheffield", "Sheffield" has to always stay the main (& last) surname. The title isn't affected by that anyway).

It would also be good to stipulate that it doesn't affect current heirs, but that women are next in line (if a son has been raised as heir all his life, he should stay heir but his 4 sisters and their offspring should now be eligible in case the son doesn't have a spawn of his own) and that at the same time in families where only daughters have been born, the eldest daughter becomes heir. I guess that would complicate matters a touch, addressing already living heirs etc.

Beyond those two points I can't entirely see what other problems could arise

I read a lot about the topic but it was years ago. I think the case that resolved the issue even went to the UN!

As our consitution is agains discrimination by gender they ended up winning. Though ironic because the monarchy succession is semi salic and hasnt changed and this has caused friction between aristo and royal family.

Anyway the new rule was applied without a generation gap so someone could have been expecting to inherit for like 60 years to realise his older sister was the new successor. Imagine the family friction.

Logged

“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

One issue with keeping the same name is that by convention in the UK that means the child is illegitimate and so ineligible to inherit (that was why the Queen was forced into changing the family name to Mountbatten-Windsor as it was pointed out to her that if she kept just Windsor then Andrew would be regarded as illegitimate as he wouldn't have his father's surname.

I do think that changing the remainder to 'heirs male - in lieu of heirs male, heirs female' may work - at least for the present but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I am waiting to see the wording given to Harry's title because if there is anything other than 'heirs male' I can see Andrew pushing for a regrant of the York title with the same wording so Beatrice can inherit.

^^^ Well yeah that is rightly a dispute, it should be the same law for everyone. In the UK it's exactly the opposite, women could always inherit the throne but now can't be usurped by younger brothers, whereas for aristos all stays the same, women can't inherit at all. Exceptions have happened though.

Well seems though like I solved these problems with my suggestions!! Why don't they hire me? It clearly is doable, they are just too lazy and stupid to sit down and effect change. Which is weird becaue in part aristos are a dying breed due to the lack of heirs ("the dying dukes") and because ducal peerages are now totally impossible for a non-Winds. The Winds have once again all. So basically the peers are currently in ways negatively affected but don't push for change. There are even now cases where a peer had only daughters, now title and - worse - the estate and many other things tied to the estate go to some remote male relative, even though the daughters have run the estate and are more than capable of taking it on. The issue isn't simply the title. Some peers were creative and worded their wills in such ways that titles were separated from their estates so their direct descendants could inherit and not some remote relative no one even knows. That isn't always possible either and so many case by case scenarios are created...

^^ Are you sure? That is the 1st time I'm hearing this, it was always said that "Mountbatten Windsor" as surname was created to appease Phil, not because the kids would have been illegitimate with only the Winds surname. Britain is very lax on names and surnames anyway...

Passing on the houses' surname is important, but as I said then doubling it up would be the solution with the houses' surname always being the main one and last. Say the Winds were aristos and not monarchs, then eg Liz Mounbatten Windsor and say Anne is her 1st born and inherits, then she'd have been after marriage Anne Phillips Windsor (before marriage Mountbatten Windsor) and say Zara is oldest and heir then Zara Tindall Windsor after marriage and Phillips Windsor before.